DOCSLIB.ORG

Invasive Plant Strategy in Response to Resolution 36360

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Invasive Plant Strategy in Response to Resolution 36360 City of Portland Invasive Plant Strategy In Response to Resolution 36360 October 30, 2008 Table of Contents ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................................. I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. II CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................1 1.1 WHAT IS AN INVASIVE PLANT? ...........................................................................................................................1 1.2 HOW DID INVASIVE PLANTS GET HERE? ............................................................................................................2 1.3 RESOLUTION 36360 ............................................................................................................................................2 1.3.1 City of Portland Resolution 36360.............................................................................................................2 1.3.2 Strategy Report ..........................................................................................................................................3 1.3.3 Acreage of City Owned Open Space and Estimates of Invasive Plant Species ..........................................3 1.4 WHY ARE INVASIVE SPECIES A PROBLEM?.........................................................................................................4 1.4.1 Watershed Health........................................................................................................................................4 1.4.2 Wildfire Risk...............................................................................................................................................8 1.4.3 Stormwater Interception...........................................................................................................................10 1.4.4 Green Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................10 1.4.5 Economics ................................................................................................................................................11 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CITY PROGRAMS ............................................................................................13 CHAPTER 3: REGIONAL INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL ....................................................................15 3.1 REGIONAL EFFORTS AND CITY COORDINATION ................................................................................................15 3.2 REVIEW OF INVASIVE PLANT MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS .................................................................................15 3.3 NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS ...........................................................................................................................16 CHAPTER 4: TEN YEAR GOALS ............................................................................................................17 4.1 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT.................................................................................................................................17 4.2 OUTREACH,EDUCATION, AND COORDINATION.................................................................................................17 4.3 INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT..........................................................................................................................17 4.4 INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL ............................................................................................................................18 CHAPTER 5: PROPOSED THREE YEAR WORK PLAN ........................................................................19 5.1 POLICY AND PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................................19 5.1.1 Policy .......................................................................................................................................................19 5.1.2 Programs to Enhance Public Land Management ....................................................................................20 5.1.3 Programs for Public and Private Lands ..................................................................................................21 5.1.4 Enforcement .............................................................................................................................................22 5.2 OUTREACH AND EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................22 5.2.1 Develop Media Strategy...........................................................................................................................23 5.2.2 Technical and Financial Assistance to Landowners................................................................................23 5.2.3 Publication and Outreach Materials........................................................................................................25 5.2.4 Lead by Example......................................................................................................................................26 5.3 COORDINATION.................................................................................................................................................27 5.4 ASSESSMENT (INVENTORY AND CONTROL PRIORITIES) ....................................................................................28 5.4.1 Inventory ...................................................................................................................................................28 5.4.2 Control Priorities......................................................................................................................................29 5.4.3 Annual Reporting .....................................................................................................................................31 5.4.4 Invasive Animal Strategy..........................................................................................................................32 5.4.5 Research...................................................................................................................................................32 5.5 CONTROL AND RESTORATION ...........................................................................................................................32 5.5.1 Methods....................................................................................................................................................32 5.5.2 Development of Species-specific Management Plans ..............................................................................33 5.5.3 Control Efforts .........................................................................................................................................34 5.5.4 Site Restoration Following Control Efforts..............................................................................................36 CHAPTER 6: COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES...................................................................................38 6.1 COSTS ...............................................................................................................................................................38 6.1.1 Staffing Costs ...........................................................................................................................................39 6.2 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES..........................................................................................................................41 6.2.1 Existing and Future Operating Funds......................................................................................................41 6.2.2 Ratepayer and System Development Charges..........................................................................................41 6.2.3 Tax Revenue and Incentive Based Program.............................................................................................42 6.2.4 Grants ......................................................................................................................................................42 6.2.5 Revenue from Mitigation Fees or Fines for Violations ............................................................................43 6.2.6 Summary of Potential Funding Sources...................................................................................................43 CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................45 CHAPTER 8: REFERENCES....................................................................................................................46 LIST OF APPENDICES:.............................................................................................................................48 Appendix A: City of Portland Bureau of Planning Invasive Species Designations List Appendix B: City of Portland Resolution 36360 Appendix C: Summary of Report Development Appendix D: Summary of City and Regional Invasive Plant Species Programs Appendix E: Photos Appendix F: Tables Appendix G: Figures Appendix H: Memo: Use of Goats for Invasive Plant Species Control
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2015 DRAFT Park SDC Capital Plan 150412.Xlsx
    2015 PARK SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE 20‐YEAR CAPITAL PLAN (SUMMARY) April 2015 As required by ORS 223.309 Portland Parks and Recreation maintains a list of capacity increasing projects intended to TYPES OF PROJECTS THAT INCREASE CAPACITY: address the need created by growth. These projects are eligible to be funding with Park SDC revenue . The total value of Land acquisition projects summarized below exceeds the potential revenue of $552 million estimated by the 2015 Park SDC Methodology and Develop new parks on new land the funding from non-SDC revenue targeted for growth projects. Expand existing recreation facilities, trails, play areas, picnic areas, etc The project list and capital plan is a "living" document that, per ORS 223.309 (2), maybe modified at anytime. It should be Increase playability, durability and life of facilities noted that potential modifications to the project list will not impact the fee since the fee is not based on the project list, but Develop and improve parks to withstand more intense and extended use rather the level of service established by the adopted Park SDC Methodology. Construct new or expand existing community centers, aquatic facilities, and maintenance facilities Increase capacity of existing community centers, aquatic facilities, and maintenance facilities ELIGIBLE PROJECTS POTENTIAL REVENUE TOTAL PARK SDC ELIGIBLE CAPACITY INCREASING PROJECTS 20‐year Total SDC REVENUE CATEGORY SDC Funds Other Revenue Total 2015‐35 TOTAL Park SDC Eligible City‐Wide Capacity Increasing Projects 566,640,621 City‐Wide
    [Show full text]
  • ORDINANCE NO. 187150 As Amended
    ORDINANCE NO. 187150 As Amended Accept Park System Development Charge Methodology Update Report for implementation, and amend the applicable sections of City Code (Ordinance; amend Code Chapter 17.13) The City of Portland ordains: Section 1. The Council finds: 1. Ordinance No. 172614, passed by the Council on August 19, 1998 authorized establishment of a Parks and Recreation System Development Charge(SDC) and created a new City Code Chapter 17.13. 2. In October 1998 the City established a Parks SDC program. City Code required that the program be updated every two years to ensure that program goals were being met. An update was implemented on July 1, 2005 pursuant to Ordinance No. 179008, as amended. The required update reviewed the Parks SDC Program to determine that sufficient money will be available to fund capacity-increasing facilities identified by the Parks SDC-CIP; to determine whether the adopted and indexed SDC rate has kept pace with inflation; to determine whether the Parks SDC-CIP should be modified; and to ensure that SDC receipts will not over-fund such facilities. 3. Ordinance No 175774, passed by the Council on July 12, 2001 adopted The Parks 2020 Vision. This report highlighted significant challenges confronting the City in regards to shoring up our ailing park facilities, eliminating inequity in underserved neighborhoods, and providing a stable source of funding to address not just our existing shortfalls, but to also meet the needs created by new development. The Park SDC is the most significant revenue opportunity available to Parks to address growth. It is imperative that this opportunity is maximized to recover reasonable costs from new development.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Reciprocal Admissions Program
    AMERICAN HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY 2020 RECIPROCAL ADMISSIONS PROGRAM Participating Gardens, Arboreta, and Conservatories For details on benefits and 90-mile radius enforcement, see https://ahsgardening.org/gardening-programs/rap Program Guidelines: A current membership card from the American Horticultural Society (AHS) or a participating RAP garden entitles the visitor to special admissions privileges and/or discounts at many different types of gardens. The AHS provides the following guidelines to its members and the members of participating gardens for enjoying their RAP benefits: This printable document is a listing of all sites that participate in the American Horticultural Society’s Reciprocal Admissions Program. This listing does not include information about the benefit(s) that each site offers. For details on benefits and enforcement of the 90- mile radius exclusion, see https://ahsgardening.org/gardening-programs/rap Call the garden you would like to visit ahead of time. Some gardens have exclusions for special events, for visitors who live within 90 miles of the garden, etc. Each garden has its own unique admissions policy, RAP benefits, and hours of operations. Calling ahead ensures that you get the most up to date information. Present your current membership card to receive the RAP benefit(s) for that garden. Each card will only admit the individual(s) whose name is listed on the card. In the case of a family, couple, or household membership card that does not list names, the garden must extend the benefit(s) to at least two of the members. Beyond this, gardens will refer to their own policies regarding household/family memberships.
    [Show full text]
  • Portland Tribune Closer to Home
    Ducks primed for strong fi nish EDITION — SEE SPORTS, B1 Oregon leaving lone loss well behind GREATER PORTLAND PortlandT U E S D A Y , N O V E M B E R 4 , 2 0 1 4 • T W IC E C H O S E N T H E N A T IO N ’S B E S T N O N D A IL Y P ATribune P E R • P O R T L A N D T R IB U N E .C O M • P U B L IS H E D T U E S D A Y A N D T HURSDAY Sites for Court new jobs wrestles face more with cap hurdles on liability Study says luring Legal fi ght swirls big employers around $12 million depends on local verdict in OHSU case By PETER W ONG land-use action The Tribune By JIM REDDEN The Oregon Supreme Court The Tribune will hear arguments Thurs- day, Nov. 6, on whether $3 mil- On paper, the Portland area lion in damages is “substan- has enough vacant industrial tial” enough for the family of land to meet employers’ a boy whose liver operation at needs for the next 20 years. Oregon Health & Science Uni- In reality, maybe not. More versity went awry in 2009. than half the available sites need A jury in Multnomah County government help to develop, in- Circuit Court returned a $12 mil- cluding assembling adjacent BIG DREAMS, lion verdict last year against lots, annexations into cities, in- OHSU and surgeon Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenspaces Accomplishment Report
    metropolitan Greenspaces program Summary of Accomplishments 1991-2005 Metro U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Parks and Greenspaces Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office 600 NE Grand Avenue 2600 SE 98th Avenue, Ste. 100 Portland, Oregon 97232 Portland, Oregon 97266 (503) 797-1850 (503) 231-6179 January 2005 Table of Contents PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT ...................................................................................................... 2 METROPOLITAN GREENSPACES PROGRAM OVERVIEW ................................................. 2 PUBLICATIONS, PRODUCTS and GREENSPACES PROJECTS ............................................ 4 CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION GRANT PROJECTS ............................................... 7 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION GRANT PROJECTS ........................................................ 32 SALMONID EDUCATION AND ENHANCEMENT GRANT PROJECTS ............................ 57 GREEN CITY DATA PROJECT ................................................................................................ 64 Authors: This report was written by Ron Klein, Mel Huie, Lynn Wilson, Deb Scrivens and Ilene Moss of Metro Regional Parks and Greenspaces and Jennifer Thompson with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office. Contacts: Kemper McMaster, State Supervisor Jennifer Thompson, Greenspaces Program Coordinator U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office 2600 SE 98th Avenue, Ste. 100 Portland, Oregon 97266 (503) 231-6179 Jim Desmond, Director Metro Regional Parks & Greenspaces 600
    [Show full text]
  • Within Your Reach a Publication of the Johnson Creek Watershed Council
    Winter 2011 Volume XIX, No. 1 Within Your Reach A publication of the Johnson Creek Watershed Council reach: a) a portion of a stream or river b) an extent, esp. of knowledge or comprehension Invasives, Trash and Donuts By JoAnn Herrigel, Community Services Director, City of Milwaukie I have attended the Johnson Creek Water- shed Council’s Watershed Wide Event (WWE) for almost ten years in a row. When I began attending this event, my daughter was 3 years old and she and I spent most of our time eat- ing donuts and wandering about talking to people. Thankfully, the donuts were plentiful (and yummy) and there were lots of fun people to chat with! People of all ages, vocations and Spawning Salmon Return interests attend these events and I always meet someone with an interesting story to tell. One to Upper Johnson Creek year I brought my two friends who were visit- By Matt Clark, Executive Director, JCWC ing from New York state and not only did they have a great time, but they entertained their In late 2010, three adult Coho Salmon carcasses and one live adult Coho were seen in work teammates with stories of their east coast mainstem Johnson Creek near the eastern border of Gresham, about 15 miles from the mouth lives and won the prize for having travelled the of Johnson Creek—much farther upstream than spawning Coho have been documented in farthest for a JCWC Watershed Wide Event! recent years. Historically, Coho were abundant throughout the Johnson Creek Watershed, but A few years in a row, I cajoled the members for the last twenty years or more, spawning Coho have only been documented in small numbers of the Milwaukie Riverfront Board, which I in lower Johnson Creek and Crystal Springs Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • Southwest Corridor Light Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
    APPENDIX B4.2 – LAND USE BACKGROUND INFORMATION Existing Land Uses Existing land uses are shown on Figures B4.2‐1 to B4.2‐3, which include the ½‐mile study areas surrounding the potential stations as well as the ¼‐mile study areas on each side of the alignment alternatives. Segment A begins in the southern end of downtown Portland, the central city of the region, includes the South Waterfront District and extends south to the Hillsdale neighborhood. Existing land use here has been historically influenced and constrained by the presence of SW Barbur Boulevard (formerly a rail line) and the Willamette River, and more recently by the development of Interstates 5 and 205 (I‐5 and I‐205) as well as SW Naito Parkway. The northern portion of this segment is an extension of the central city (downtown) in its more densely developed blocks, and is similar in feel to other neighborhoods in the southern downtown area. The southern section of Segment A is dominated by auto‐oriented uses separated by parking lots and driveways. Properties on SW Barbur Boulevard are predominantly zoned for general commercial uses, and are developed with many auto‐oriented uses separated by parking lots and driveways. The zoning along SW Barbur Boulevard includes a mixture of commercial, open space and residential uses on the northern edge, transitioning to primarily multifamily and single‐family housing through the steep and wooded area, and then mostly low‐density commercial for the remainder of the corridor heading south to Tigard. Along SW Barbur Boulevard, existing land uses include auto‐oriented low‐ density commercial uses involving offices, personal services, and retail, followed by restaurants, apartments, auto‐specific uses (mechanics, tire and oil centers, body shops) and hotels.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Areas Restoration Plan October 2010
    Natural Areas Restoration Plan October 2010 Update: March 2015 Natural Areas Restoration Plan Update March 18, 2015 Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) completed the first system wide Natural Areas Restoration Plan (plan) in October 2010. The plan was completed as a requirement for Salmon Safe certification. It established restoration goals and strategies, management priorities and implementation actions. It is currently used to set restoration priorities (staff effort and funding) for natural areas. The plan stated that there would be a review and update every 3-5 years. The 2014 update modified the functional methodology and revised the weighting to remove the emphasis on salmonids and their habitat needs. The 2014 Natural Area Management Priority Matrix changes are based on the updated natural resource function methodology and ecological health determined by the best professional judgment of the ecologist managing the site. The goals, strategies and implementation actions remain the same. This updates also includes the natural area properties purchased since 2010. Methodology Update The methodology update evaluated additional functions and created a new weighting system. The original plan weighted functions associated with salmon habitat the highest while this update does not. Some of the updated functions were assigned weighted scores on a scale of 3 (high) to 1 (low) similar to the scoring used in the 2010 plan. A natural area was also given points for Terrestrial Ecology Enhancement Strategy (TEES) special status habitats and City of Portland At-Risk Species. The functions included are: (see attached memo for details): Streams: Perennial, non-perennial and within 100 feet of the natural area.
    [Show full text]
  • Parks, Recreation, and Culture Service Area
    Parks, Recreation, and Culture Service Area • Portland Parks and Recreation Percent of City Budget Parks, Recreation, and Culture Service Area 2.8% Remaining City Budget 97.2% Percent of Service Area Budget Portland Parks and Recreation 100.0% Service Area Overview Revised Adopted Change from Percent Requirements FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 Prior Year Change Operating 93,163,727 78,833,171 (14,330,556) (15.38) Capital 21,408,689 21,595,385 186,696 0.87 Total Requirements 114,572,416 100,428,556 (14,143,860) (12.34) Authorized Positions 445.13 411.13 (34.00) (7.64) City of Portland, Oregon – FY 2012-13 Adopted Budget 217 Parks, Recreation, and Culture Service Area Service Area Highlights Description The Parks, Recreation, and Culture service area includes services for Portland Parks & Recreation, the Golf program, Portland International Raceway (PIR), and the Parks Capital Improvement Program Fund. Major Themes Portland Parks & The FY 2012-13 Adopted Budget for Parks includes a $2.9 million reduction in Recreation Operating ongoing General Fund discretionary resources, of which $981,829 is attributable to Budget support, management, and administrative functions affecting 10.0 FTE. In addition, the bureau has been allocated $370,000 of one-time General Fund resources to continue three Teen Programming positions and the summer lunch program. Parks Construction Parks' FY 2012-13 CIP budget is $21.6 million. Of this amount, $1.2 million is and Maintenance supported by the City's General Fund with remaining funding derived from grants, Program system development charges, the Portland Development Commission, Metro, and other sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Open House Summary Notes
    Summary Notes from the River Plan / South Reach Open House -12/1/18, at Lewellyn School Approximately 90 people attended the open house, which featured 5 display stations: 1) Project Overview and Urban Design Concept, 2) Recreation, Parks, Trails and Scenic Resources, 3) Natural Resources: Habitat, Vegetation and Floodplains, 4) Transportation; and 5) Land Use and Zoning. Each display station had a map(s), displayed information on what we’ve (project staff have) learned, draft plan concepts for zoning and other implementation actions, and a chart pack for people to share their comments. A couple of stations had Big Idea concept illustrations. They were the Natural Resources and Recreation display stations. Comment cards were also available for participants to provide their thoughts on the materials presented at the open house or anything else related to the South Reach. Below are the comments received from the open house event. The comments are organized by topics. Similar comments were provided at different stations and are reflected once with an acknowledgement when others recorded their additional support for a specific comment. Project Overview and Urban Design Concept • Ferry stop at Oaks Amusement Park • More viewpoints at Oaks Amusement Park – looking towards downtown • Extend no wake zone south to SE Spokane St – restrictions on wake board, ballast or wake enhancing activities (4 people support this comment) • Move Springwater Corridor observation deck further south by Oaks Amusement Park • Bird safe and lighting standards incentive program • Trolley/bicycle study – is there enough room for both on the west side? • Lighting as a consideration on the Springwater Corridor Trail • No breach of levee between Ross Island and Hardtack Island.
    [Show full text]
  • Within Your Reach a Publication of the Johnson Creek Watershed Council
    Winter 2009 Volume XVII, No. 1 Within Your Reach A publication of the Johnson Creek Watershed Council reach: a) a portion of a stream or river b) an extent, esp. of knowledge or comprehension Cultural Perspectives of the Watershed: The first in a multi-part series exploring diverse cultural perspectives of Johnson Creek Watershed Native Oregonian Perspective By Charles F. Sams III, Director Tribal and Native Lands Program, Trust for Public Land In 1491, the largest inhabited city in Eu- rope was London, England with a popula- tion of nearly 90,000 people. In that same Oregon Hunters Association members gather at their stewardship site at Powell Butte. year, the area around present day Portland was populated by between 30,000 to 50,000 Natives, mostly Chinook, Clackamas, North- Watershed Wide Event Depends ern Molalla, Tualatin, Siletz, and Kalapuya tribal peoples. For over 10,000 years, Native on Committed Partners Like OHA Americans lived throughout the By Rick Williams, Vice President, Oregon Hunters Association Willamette Valley. When you see volunteers clad in hunter the first national parks, started the wildlife It is, therefore, no orange clothing clearing invasive vegetation preserve system, and developed our first con- coincidence that or replanting native species during the John- servation programs. These efforts, followed the City of Port- son Creek Watershed Wide Event, you might by the actions of other great conservation- land, which lies at wonder, “Who are these people and why are ists like Aldo Leopold, led to our current the intersection of they here?” The answer is that all of those system of national wildlife management and the Willamette and volunteers are hunters and they belong to an the recovery of our wildlife resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Winter 2016 Volume XXIV, No
    Winter 2016 Volume XXIV, No. 1 Mark Your Calendars - Watershed Wide 2016 - Danielle Miles, Volunteer and Outreach Coordinator As the days begin to get longer again, the Oregon grapes and Indian plums begin to break their buds—reminding us that spring is coming, and with it, our annual Watershed Wide event. If you haven’t participated in this surge of volunteerism that spans the length of the Johnson Creek Watershed, you’ll want to mark your calendars. On March 5th, 400 volunteers are needed to tackle ten sites across the entire watershed—all in one day. We will remove invasive plant species, plant thousands of bare- root plants and live stake cuttings, and mulch young seedlings. After a morning of good hard work, we will feast together on hot pizza—compliments of the watershed council and our partners. There is nothing like biting into a slice of piping hot pizza after working outside, surrounded by the cheerful hum of friends and neighbors. Watershed Wide is truly an event too big for one organization alone to tackle. Our partners at Portland Parks and Recreation, the City of Gresham, Crystal Springs Partnership, Friends of Trees, and Friends of Tideman Johnson all help us pull off this day of community service; sponsors like Clackamas Water Environment Services help us cover some of the costs; and hundreds of volunteers help us get plants in the ground. Registration opens on February 1st, 2016. To sign up, visit the “Events Calendar” on our website (www.jcwc.org) and click on the Watershed Wide Event on March 5th.
    [Show full text]